Strangely enough, that's not exactly the explanation (excuse?) for the tiny font. We were pretty far along in the process when some of the print parameters changed, and we were faced with either using a really small font on the tables (seriously, it's like a ridiculous 5 pt font...) or resetting the entire layout.

It's convoluted. We won't make the same mistake again.

So, were there any design notes that were trimmed down or cut out completely? Did every design note actually get included? If any were excluded, would you consider posting them someday?

We had quite a bit more to say about the Druid and Monk changes, I know for a fact-- and ended up cutting quite a bit.

But I don't think we have a repository of "designer notes" that were cut. Sorry.

Quite honestly, this forum (and ENworld at large) is probably your best source of designer notes. The design of Trailblazer wasn't an open beta of the scale of Pathfinder, but I was always very open about what I was doing and why, and a lot of those conversations are here at ENworld. I *do* have a bookmark tab full of links to threads here at ENworld that were progenitors of Trailblazer...

I know I'd pointed out more of the similarities to the 1e monk. While most of the itemized list is still there, I had more notes as to why each "1e-ism" was important to the balance of the game.

Overall just note the similarities in "party role" between the rogue and the monk. In terms of role, party contribution, the rogue and monk are now more similar than the former thematic pairing of rogue & bard.

I was very down on the 3.5 monk. I've seen many players create a monk with high hopes and then realize the class couldn't do anything they thought it could the first time they get stomped in combat. After that, they are resolved to trying to get a stunning blow off once in a while.

The 3.5 monk had multiple problems: it couldn't hit anything, didn't do much damage, and was very fragile. You could try to mitigate one or two of things with a good build but it was still an uphill battle.

We didn't do much to address the monk's defense/AC in TB but I think we definitely gave the monk a combat boost (centered bonus, damage increase, etc).

For me, some the biggest changes are the increased skills, half BMB, and removing the multiclass restrictions. You can definitely create some combinations that you couldn't before. Take a couple of monk levels with a full caster class is great synergy, as is a fighter/monk for expert weapon prof and the monk's weapon kata.

I always like playing skill monkey characters and the monk now fills this role, especially considering you don't need a rogue to handle the trap-finding duties anymore.

I do agree that the monk is still in that jack-of-all-trades realm but he's gotten a boost across the board.

Villager

I'm not quite sure, honestly. If I was, I'd have fixed it and mentioned it in the HR thread.

I haven't seen one in play too much, but I think it's a combination of being squishy and only mildly strike-y. Before my current campaign I ran a third level adventure with throw-away characters to give everyone a chance to get a feel for how their concepts would work. The one that haven't seen any sort of re-emergence in the actual campaign are the Bard and Monk, and I don't blame the players at all.
The Monk was a neat character, and a lot of fun to discuss, but she wasn't particularly powerful. Her damage per strike was nothing on the rogue's (or the various barbarians'), her skill points were (and are) too few to really fill the skill monkey role (which really does require a skill bonus of 10+ in most skills to be effective), and she was too squishy (AC and HP) to do the bad-ass kung fu fight-scene shtick.

I'm left with the feeling that the monk is a better class than it once was, but still nothing to build a character around. It's more a thing to dip into for increased versatility (and a few spiffy feats at low level) than a cornerstone of an effective character.

Which is one of the main reasons I was hoping to see the discussions; so that I could pin down the weaknesses and make further changes.

Villager

My current group is comprised of a Half-Orc Ftr9 and a Dwarf Monk 6 / Cleric 3. So far, the monk is definitely holding up his end of things - his damage output per strike is lower (granted, the fighter is using a greatsword with Expert Weapon Proficiency for die-size increase and plenty o' power attack, so that's kind of a given), but the extra attack from flurry helps. He's also leveraged his AC and spellcasting both off of wisdom, which has worked out pretty well. In most encounters, the fighter tends to engage enemy front-line combatants while the monk tumbles through the gaps to grapple enemy spellcasters and archers (frequently with Balor's Nimbus or other grappleriffic spells in place). If he can't reach a target, Sound Lance and Deific Vengeance work nicely to shore up his (and the monk class') lack of non-magical ranged capabilities.

Villager

We're playing the Pathfinder Legacy of Fire with Trailblazer, currently near the end of the first part.
The group gathers a paladin, a wizard, a druid, a rogue and the monk character with one level of rogue (also a bard as a very occasionnal player). There's no fighter in the group and the monk takes that role efficiently with his friend the rogue. They generally eliminate the opposition quickly before it becomes a real problem. The monk is also a specialist of acrobatic finishing moves

So far, the various characters are balanced and no one seems out of place. In fact the only problem is that, probably because I didn't often use the Elite template, the group dominates easily the encounters. But it will change next game...